Trump puts Clinton’s energy policy on trial in epic debate take down

During the second #2016 presidential debate, a nimble #Donald Trump (R) squared off against a heavily scripted #Hillary Clinton (D), and an unlikely subject became one of the most tweeted topics: energy policy. Ken Bone, a town hall member, asked near the end of the debate, “What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs, while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?”

His question and each candidate’s response quickly sent Twitter and Facebook into overload. The St. Louis native even got his own #kenbone hashtag. Just add this to the crazy, historical #Election 2016. Even BuzzFeed is calling Ken Bone the hero of the debate (while more serious outlets say Trump was the winner, and Hillary was off her game).

Trump responded by saying that under President Obama’s administration, the energy industry is “under siege.” The EPA, Trump said, was “killing these energy companies. And foreign companies are now coming in buying our — buying so many of our different plants and then re-jiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil. We are killing, absolutely killing our energy business in this country.”

Trump also talked about his energy policy: “I’m all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, solar, etc. But we need much more than wind and solar. And you look at our miners. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. There is a thing called clean coal.” Trump was referring to coal plants that scrub their vented emissions and pump mostly water vapor into the atmosphere.

Related

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (1)

Amber

The USA election is the ugliest reality show in history . Neither one can be seen to represent the public interest . Two lying power hungry predators . No wonder they were friends once .
Does the USA need a two year long Billion $$ mud brawl between two seniors who likely won’t even make it a full term with their gong show life style ?
How does this serve the interests of people ?
Have a convention and on the third day pick a party leader . Three months of campaigning with one debate a month and vote . Think of the carbon foot print reduction and the smell of complete BS removed .

Get a daily digest of the day’s headlines

Recent Comments

Amber

If left wing pinko Saunders doesn’t like him he sounds like he has potential .
He looks like a guy with a bit of backbone and won’t be bullied by the Demo rat
whiners who have infiltrated the EPA .
Good luck Mr. Pruitt . …. hire security . When the looney tunes get desperate( and they are ) they go into ugly mode . Taking apart their $Trillion dollar con game is going to get them down right belligerent but who cares ? They did get about 1 % of the vote
after all . In other words the science fiction is settled in the minds of voters by about
99 % . The debate is over in their hot air world .
Drain away Mr. Pruitt the public backs you despite the shrill sound of whiners who just had their piggy bank broken .

Amber

The NASA data manipulators collectively don’t have an IQ over 38 . Bullshit merchants about to be out on their ass . Maybe Britain would like to hire NASA rejects .
Where oh where are Dicaprio and Gore going to get their alarmist propaganda ?
When is the much vaunted IPCC report coming out ? That’s right NEVER .
The jig is up they were played as useful idiots and are no longer required .
Did the IPCC hot pants smut writer ever beat those sexual harassment allegations ? Quality right through the organization .

Amber

Why would virtually no change to Antarctic ice in over 100 years be a surprise at all .
Whether it’s minus – 60 or minus – 58 certainly we know it is fricking cold and it is not about to thaw . Throw a few volcanos open below the surface and a part of it might
but if that is considered caused by climate change the science fiction is bigger than
we know .
The question is how much will the Antarctic grow by over the next 1000 years ?

Amirlach

JayPee

I’m willing to consider your argument, but I’m disturbed of your willing to give credence to the unproven and unfoundedly assumed presumption that CO2, CH4, and any other gasses that the extremist left hates are upon their dictum alone the mythical GREENHOUSE GASSES as they define them to be.

I ask you not to buy into their argument without the proof that they have never had.
They have always had conjecture, lies and hysteria and even a low percentage of consensus ( as if that means anything ).
But they have NEVER had proof of their mythical GREENHOUSE EFFECT ( as defined by the extremist left ).